Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
LYNX SYSTEM DEVELOPERS CASE NO. C17-1165 JLR INC. and ISOLYNX, LLC,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs, v.
ZEBRA ENTERPRISE
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and ZIH CORP.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs Lynx System Developers Inc. and Isolynx, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to seal Exhibit C to the Declaration of Ashley E. LaValley. (Mot. (Dkt. # 10) at 1-2.; see also LaValley Decl. (Dkt. # 9); Exhibit C (Dkt. # 11) (sealed).) Defendants Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation, Zebra Technologies Corporation, and ZIH Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) do not *2 oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 20).) The court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant law, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.
The parties ask the court to seal Exhibit C, which is an email chain among counsel for Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the University of Washington (“UW Email Chain”). This email chain was designated by Defendants as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY,” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in the underlying Massachusetts action. See Lynx Sys. Developers, Inc., et al. v. Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp., et al. , Case No. 1:15-cv-12297-GAO (D. Mass.), Dkt. # 96.
Under Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B), a motion to seal a document must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal,” including “the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought,” “the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted,” and “why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Having reviewed Exhibit C, the court concludes that it contains sensitive business information that would cause substantial injury to Defendants if the public were allowed access, such that sealing the document is the least restrictive means of protecting the confidential information.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 10), and DIRECTS the clerk to maintain the seal on docket number 11.
Dated this 15th day of August, 2017. *3 A JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge